“This is a circus”: The unmitigated bullying from Piers Morgan

Some time ago I was on the Piers Morgan “Uncensored” show for half an hour, talking about why biological sex is binary (see my post about this here). I now realize how fortunate I was, because I knew in advance that Morgan agreed with me and I didn’t face what Natasha Hausdorff faces below (and many other guests have also faced): unmitigated, rude, and arrogant bullying, as well as constant interruptions. (My solo appearance was followed by a panel of three discussants, and at least one of those people faced Morgan’s opprobrium.)

In the show below (the bullying starts at the beginning and ends at about an hour in, followed by an interview with Ahmed Alnaouq, who, it’s claimed (see below) is from a family of Hamas terrorists. But let’s concentrate on the main guest/target Natasha Hausdorff, someone I deeply admire. She’s a British barrister specializing in international law and also the legal head of the UK lawyers For Israel.  She keeps her cool even under the hottest fire, and you can’t get much hotter than this kind of rude interrogation by Morgan.  There is no debate, no speech, that Hausdorff will refuse to participate in, even if she knows she’ll be subject to booing and hatred, for she feels that she must get the message out about the world’s misconceptions about Israel (e.g., the “apartheid state” and “genocide” canards).  I’ve rarely seen someone so brave on the platform.

Here she tries to give her opinions to both Piers Morgan and libertarian/comedian Dave Smith, but hardly gets a chance to speak. I don’t recommend that you watch the entire first hour, but do dip into it. I recommend, for example, watching the segments beginning at 17:45, 24:35, 27:30, 38:00, and 41:30 (Hausdorff gets two short, uninterrupted spaces to respond, eloquently, at 46:48 and 53:45).  Note that she never interrupts either Smith or Morgan, but listens politely. She is not afforded the same consideration.

Note as well that neither Smith nor Morgan levels any criticisms at Hamas, save for one brief offhand remark by Morgan. Especially notable is the complete dearth of admission by the two men that civilian deaths certainly from Hamas using Gazans as human shields, nor do they offer any approbation for IDF’s care not to kill civilians.

Now if you are anti-Israel you will be taking Pierce’s self-admitted “objective” evaluation of the situation, but I will mention two issues, one of which is dealt with below.

First, Hausdorff is asked several times to admit that Israel has nuclear weapons. Many of us believe they do, but in fact Israel has never admitted it has nuclear weapons (a good strategy if you don’t!), and for a lawyer to say otherwise is simply not on.

Second, Morgan repeatedly brings up the issue of why Israel doesn’t allow foreign reporters into Gaza. In fact it has: Douglas Murray has been several times. Of course, as Morgan says, he was “embedded with the IDF” but if I’m not wrong other journalists from organizations like Reuters have been allowed into Gaza, or at least into Lebanon. But see the article by Sheri Oz below.

And if you’re anti-Israel, you may find support in the words of Morgan and Smith. From me: Kudos to Hausdorff for withstanding Morgan’s verbal cannonade.

 

Here’s a post from Global Disconnect that dissects the segment above, include Morgan’s bullying, his ignorance of the data relevant to the Hamas/Gaza war, and, at the end, the background of guest Ahmed Alnaouq. Click the headline to read.

A few excerpts:

Piers Morgan couldn’t help himself. In his latest so-called debate between comedian Dave Smith and international lawyer Natasha Hausdorff. The so-called “debate: was a staggering display of contempt for both basic debate etiquette and respect for the woman and legal expert he invited to his show. At one point, Piers even sneered that “numbers aren’t her strong point,” a cheap, sexist jab suggesting she’s somehow stupid. In reality, the one who showed no grasp of numbers, facts, logic or any journalistic integrity was him.

. . . Since numbers “aren’t Piers’ thing”, I’m going to help him out: he interrupted Natasha Hausdorff 103 times. Her longest uninterrupted statement lasted 38 seconds, and she generally wasn’t allowed to string five words together before being cut off. Dave Smith spoke uninterrupted nearly every time he had the floor. Piers only interjected 3 times: the first so Piers could clarify his own viewpoint, the second was to agree with Dave, and the third was to pivot back to attacking Natasha. Dave’s longest uninterrupted monologue rolled on for over three minutes. How do you like those numbers, Piers?

. . . Piers Morgan has relentlessly pushed the same false narrative that Israel is starving Gazans or attacking civilians on their way to get food. Let’s start with the most basic and shameless lie—a display not only of journalistic failure, but of a complete lack of integrity as a human being. Israel is not targeting civilians around food distribution points, and that’s not an opinion—it’s documented fact. Hamas itself has admitted to executing people in Gaza. There’s drone and CCTV footage as evidence, even the BBC and The Washington Post—initially eager to repeat Hamas propaganda—retracted their reporting. And yet, Piers Morgan still claims “there is no evidence” that Israel wasn’t responsible. That’s not ignorance—it’s deliberate deception.

. . . To answer the question Piers Morgan so desperately—and theatrically—asks in order to revive the oldest blood libel: that “Jews like to kill children”—only now aimed at the Jew among the nations, Israel. Piers Morgan theatrically performs his “outrage” over Israel not counting the number of children it supposedly “kills,” implying either a deliberate targeting or a cold disregard for their lives—yet not even his own army in any war has ever tracked civilian casualties, let alone child casualties separately, but somehow he demands of Israel what he’s never asked of any other military in any conflict, including wars his own country and brother fought.

. . . As of two days ago, Hamas claims 54,400 total deaths in Gaza, while the IDF estimates around 30,000 were Hamas and militant fighters. That leaves roughly 24,400 civilian deaths if both figures are accepted—giving Piers Morgan the simple math he challenged Natasha on: a combatant-to-civilian ratio of about 1.2:1. That’s already unusually precise warfare, but it gets sharper. Hamas itself admits natural deaths are included in its total, and over the 20-month period, about 8,500 people died of age, illness, or accidents. Excluding those, the adjusted ratio is 1.9:1—meaning 1.9 combatants killed for every 1 civilian. For context, UN and Red Cross data say the global wartime average is 9 civilians for every 1 combatant. So what exactly is Piers screaming about? Is Piers Morgan really that bad at basic math, or is his hatred for Israel so deep it overrides any pretense of journalism or objectivity from the start?

There are more data dealing with the libel that Israel is targeting children in Gaza (at one point he asks Hausdorff how many people she has killed!), but you can read the article for yourself. Just one more quote:

Piers Morgan’s “get out jail” free card is ignorance about the facts on the ground, he loves repeating the falsehood that Israel has banned international media—yet I’m not on the ground, I am not even a journalist and I’m still able to provide basic facts. Piers, Google is your friends—try using it. The truth is, Israel follows the same wartime media protocols as every modern military. No warzone offers unrestricted press access; journalists operate under controlled, coordinated entry by the military in charge, whether it’s in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else. If Piers truly wants to report from Gaza, he can apply and follow protocol, just like any other journalist in any other war.

Now, to take up the last issue, here’s a post from the Israel Diaries Substack (click to read):

So the accusation arises over and over – such as in comments to some of my articles on Substack: Why won’t Israel allow foreign reporters into Gaza?

It’s a fair question. It sounds fair.

Let us see what you think, dear readers. Below, I present two alternative theories that may explain why Israel is not letting foreign reporters into Gaza. Each theory has a number of explanatory items. Mark the item you think most likely stands behind the reason why Israel does not let foreign reporters into Gaza.

Before you answer, consider the following:

Where would the journalists even stay?

War correspondents typically lodge in hotels. Are any still operating in Gaza? If yes, fine — reporting might be feasible. If not, the only option would be to embed with one of three entities:

1. The IDF
2. Hamas
3. A still-active NGO, such as UNRWA — which, given what we now know, is effectively a Hamas affiliate.

Now, weigh the following two theories. Each has a list of possible explanations. Below each list is a multiple choice questionnaire on which you can vote for the explanation that seems most plausible to you.

Theory 1 is “The Journalist as Liability,” and theory two is “It’s a cover-up (or something more sinister),” implying that Israel has something to hide.  The article gives arguments on both sides, and readers (not many at this point) have voted, I’ll let you read the short piece for yourself.

Finally, and I haven’t seen this ever before, Hausdorff herself has taken to the news—the pages of the Spectato—to give a post facto analysis of her appearance with Morgan. Click below to read:

A couple of excerpts from the archived version. She begins with her exchange with Morgan about whether a family of children parented by two doctors was really killed in an Israeli strike. The exchange simply shows that, given Hamas’s history of false reports, Hausdorff is reserving judgement (as am I) until the matter is properly investigated.

Being interrupted and harangued, or even having my volume turned down or line cut, is not a new experience for me in “interviews”. It has always been a clear indication that the individuals involved in this unprofessional conduct were out of their depth and at a loss as to how to engage with the evidence I had presented. Nor, indeed, am I the only one experiencing such treatment. Any individual who does not subscribe to the virulently anti-Israel agenda, and who is asked to comment on broadcast media, will have experienced similar playground antics. It is demonstrative of a catastrophic failure by the media to do its job and an abject absence of journalistic integrity.

The pathetic display this week by Piers Morgan demonstrates that he is a significant part of the problem of disinformation about this conflict. Morgan should be well aware that there have been repeated stories emerging from Gaza which have subsequently been debunked only after they spread around the world. The predictable result has been the poisoning of many minds against Israel, on the basis of fabrications and blood libels. My simple entreaty was that the matter should not be prejudged, especially where fake AI generated images had been deployed to support it. Cue frenzied outrage and bile from Morgan.

Defence of fake images in pursuit of a “good story” is, of course, old ground for Morgan. He was dismissed from his role as editor of the Daily Mirror in 2004, following the publication of photographs that purportedly showed British soldiers abusing Iraqi detainees in Abu Ghraib. The images were later determined to be staged and not taken in Iraq. Morgan stood by their publication and refused to issue an apology on the basis there was no firm evidence that they were fake, though the newspaper did, acknowledging that it had been the victim of a “calculated and malicious hoax” and expressing deep regret for the reputational damage caused to the British Army. Morgan’s defence of his decision to publish those fake pictures stemmed from his opposition to the Iraq war in a disgraceful example of “the ends justify the means”.

Did he learn anything from that shameful incident? The way I was treated on Uncensored suggests not. At least when Morgan was in the employ of a national newspaper, he could be held accountable. But this no longer appears to be the case. He is now free to shout down his guests without consequence.

The problem doesn’t stop with Morgan. The unfair way in which Israel is presented in the Western media, and the refusal to treat Hamas’s claims with scepticism, misleads the public. It increases the threat of violence to Jews around the world, but also, crucially, props up and encourages Hamas, thereby prolonging the war and the suffering of Israelis and Palestinians alike.

After all this—the shouting and rudeness and inability to discuss evidence—I ask myself, “If I had it to do over again, would I still have gone on Piers Morgan’s show to discuss the binary nature of sex? And ;my answer is, “Yes, certainly.” For one thing, I knew that he agreed with me, and so expected little haranguing and rudeness. (I’m not sure that, were I Hausdorff, I would have the guts.)  Mainly, though, it was important for me to speak the biological truth as I knew it, and to relate how that prompted the FFRF’s act of censorship.

h/t: Malgorzata